Mayo v. Sprout
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the District Court, Sixth Judicial District, County of Sacramento. October 21st, 1869, the plaintiff sued the defendant to recover possession of the block bounded by I, J, Fifteenth, and Sixteenth streets, alleging that he had, by verbal lease, leased the same to the defendant, and that the defendant had failed to pay the rent, and that he had given him notice to quit. The defendant answered, denying the allegations of the complaint.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the District Court, Sixth Judicial District, County of Sacramento. October 21st, 1869, the plaintiff sued the defendant to recover possession of the block bounded by I, J, Fifteenth, and Sixteenth streets, alleging that he had, by verbal lease, leased the same to the defendant, and that the defendant had failed to pay the rent, and that he had given him notice to quit. The defendant answered, denying the allegations of the complaint. The plaintiff recovered judgment. A writ of restitution was issued about the 1st of July, 1870, and the Sheriff called on Sprout to remove him.…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court:
The authorities of the city were turned out of possession of the premises by means of a writ of habere facias issued in this action, to which they were not parties.
It is true they had entered only after the action of Mayo v. Sprout had been commenced, but it is clearly shown that, they did not go in under Sprout, or by collusion with him.
Under such circumstances it was an abuse of the process of the Court to disturb them, and the Court below properly directed that they be restored to the possession.
Order affirmed.
2Cited by3 opinions
- King v. DavisU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western Virginia · 1903
- Pacific States Savings & Loan Co. v. HarwellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1928
- Sonnenberg v. SteinbachSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1897